Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 16, 2013 12:30pm-1:00pm PST

12:30 pm
silo, one that will ultimately be more expensive for the city, but also disenfranchise the information that we're building within our database. to really look at it from a horizontal perspective how we integrate across the organization and a vertical perspective of information that they have and are able to bring forward from their experience. >> did you take a look at different classifications and how did you land on this one? were there other lower-cost ones that were evaluated? why was this one chosen? >> we looked at other jurisdictions to see how they had staffed it and at what level and what pay scale and the skillset that the needed. >> and also needed a position that was reporting directly to the treasurer. >> did we take a look at other classifications within our own system to see if there was an appropriate one that would fit that was at a lower cost?
12:31 pm
>> we looked within our organization and what would be the right, appropriate level, given the reporting structures within our organization. we did not look at necessarily other classifications. we only looks at mea09 series and what was comparable within that. >> i'm wondering if the mayor's office might be able to address that a bit? were there other classifications reviewed rather than just the structure within the treasurer/tax collector? it could very well be this is right classification. i just want to understand that process. >> supervisor, as you know, all of the city's classifications are reviewed by dhr and i know dhr did work with the treasurer's office to identify the appropriate classifications. the09 53 position, just the salary and range for that position is $125,000 to
12:32 pm
$159,000 on an annual basis. i think the information reflected in the budget analyst's report is the fully-loaded costs meaning the fringe benefits and the salaries as well. the deputy director 3 the 0 53 as i understand is the appropriate deputy director level for the treasurer's office based on their organizational structure, which uses the 0953 classification. >> if i just take a look at the high-end of that classification, at $159,000, and i'm multiply it .42, i still only get $226,000, so i just wanted to understand what the differential was. why don't we go to the budget
12:33 pm
analyst's report. >> madame chair and supervisor avalos, yes, that number in our report on page 6 in table 2 does reflect fringe benefit costs. on page 6 we report that the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance includes funding, requests of five new positions that includes one permanent position and four limited-term positions. and that would be funded as you know from the city's general fund reserve, the controller reported a current balance of $32.1 million, so that approval of this request would result in a balance of $29.6 million. since this request is about $2.6 million. and as noted in table 1 on page 46 our report, the total contract costs of an estimated
12:34 pm
$12 million. so whereas this request only shows $2 million, the actual or at least the anticipated total contract cost is $12 million and that includes $9 million over six years between the treasurer/tax collector and mani tron manitron and contract of 21 xtech, that would be for $3 million over a five-year period, which is anticipated. and again, if you look at this request, as you know, you are only getting approximately a 6-month request. if you look at it on an annualized basis the salary cost of some $400,000 would actually be over $800,000. we point out on page 7 of or report, that file 121197, amending the city's annual salary ordinance creating the
12:35 pm
five new positions is equal to 2.5 fte in 2013; with salary and mandatory benefits. that is the figure shown in table 2 on page 6 of our report. however, in order for the positions to be .5 fte, the new employees would need to be added to the payroll on january 1st, 2013. obviously, that can't happen. so furthermore, we point out that the proposed supplemental ordinance only includes -- that is the requested itself doesn't include that number $418,185. so taking those two factors into consideration, the correct fte count should be .44, instead of .50, with a
12:36 pm
start date of january 22, 2013. and the earliest date that the board could approve this is january 29, 2013. so our recommendations are on page 7. we recommend that you amend file 121197. to reduce the fte count from .5 to .4fte and on to reduce the total count from 2.5 to 2.2. we also recommend that you amend the-- although, the department reported that four of the five positions would be limited tenure. that is not specified in the annual salary ordinance. so our recommendation is to specify that those four positions, the09 22 manage 1 the 1053 senior business analyst, 1064 principal program
12:37 pm
analyst and 1244 senior personnel analyst are limited term for no more than three years. regarding recommendation no. 3 to replace $195,000 on reserve, this pertains to a city attorney's work order. supervisors, yesterday we received an explanation from the treasurer/tax collector's office as to a need for an estimated 600 city attorney h ours and we found the explanation to be reasonable and therefore withdraw recommendation no. 2 to place that $195,000 on reserve. consistent with voters approval, we recommend that you approve this legislation as amended. >> thank you, mr. rose. and then just a follow-up question to the department, with regards to the contracts for the tech that. is really the largest component on an ongoing basis that we see so far without seeing the staffing that follows afterwardsment i'm just wondering did these go
12:38 pm
through the process of coit? was that reviewed by that group of individuals? >> the initial procurement for xtech and manitron gm software went through the technology store and was approved by coit. this additional change is currently moving through, the contracting process. >> so that hasn't necessarily flowed through coyote necessarily yet? >> that is correct. >> just to the mayor's office on this item, this is simply because it's sort of a change order more than anything, where you have to update the request based on the new law that has passed. so i'm wondering if this is something that will be brought up-to-date with the coit committee to make sure everyone is on the saming page and talking to the right he stills? >> that is right. we'll include that in the coyote system, as well as the budgeting process this year.
12:39 pm
>> the value on the table for that second year which is an estimate for the value provided in the budget analyst's report appearses overstated because it overstates the fringe rate. if we take the top step for the 0953 job class and apply .45% fringe rate, which is what we expect the rate to look like for 2014. >> 45% is the fringe rate? >> they are liking to exceed 40% next fiscal year. >> okay. well, in any case with position authority that exists with that job classification, did won't exceed the amount it ought to be in the system, correct? >> as we approve that position
12:40 pm
and that position is vote in the system we're not paying more? >> that is direct in the item in front of you is a supplemental just for the current fiscal year. you will see the full budget next fiscal year and it will automatically update to current fringe rates >> thank you. so if there are no questions at this time, why don't we open this item up for public comment r. there members of the public who wish to speak to items 7 and 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. so we have a few amendments before us. >> recommendation for amendments for 1 and 2 i guess 3 was with drawn. >> great, so we have a recommendation to the two items, or actually to 12-119 per the budget analyst's report. we have a motion to accept both
12:41 pm
recommendations 1 and 2 and 3 was withdrawn so we'll not take this [r-eplts/]ation and we can do that without objection. to the underlying amendment as amended, supervisor avalos recommended forwarding without and we can do that without objection. thank you. we'll be looking at the budget that comes forward with a lot of interest. so thank you very much for all of your work. do we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda. >> before we adjourn i want to take the time for everybody serving with me on the bmx committee. budget and finance committee and thank the mayor's office and of course victor.
12:42 pm
with that, thank you all and we are adjourned. [ gavel ]
12:43 pm
12:44 pm
12:45 pm
12:46 pm
12:47 pm
12:48 pm
12:49 pm
12:50 pm
12:51 pm
12:52 pm
12:53 pm
12:54 pm
>> happy holidays to everybody. great. good morning everybody. happy holidays. we are here today to announce the launch of a three-month state wide out woach check 'n go borrower who may be entitled to significant restitution and charge and fees they paid on their loans this program is among the terms of an agreement that my office that this offs nailed in 2000 search. that lawsuit charges check and do with a represent a bank scheme which skewed the annual
12:55 pm
interest rate of 36ers and in fact chex and go carry rates as high judge 400%. our cement requires check 'n go requires them to refunder 4.3 also million dollars but it only requires a recent effort to notify borrowers and it requires effort to locate borrowers and some may have moved and may ignore a letter from an claims administrator and that is impr-this outreach is so important and why we intend to work with community partners and leaders to make this three-month thrive drive a success. now i'm very happy to be joined by a number of our community partners many of who cut short their holds plans to be here and i'll
12:56 pm
heap heap they are here today and i'll introns them in a moment but first the basic facts of the program and jibtd. all of the details are available on the website cal loan reyou the claims period runs for 90 days. beginning tomorrow, the december the 28, through march the 28. completed forms must be post marked by the final date march 28 for the restitution this a place to california resident consumers only. and those that obtained installation loans from check 'n go between 2006 and june 2008. sites include f d b e and command refunds are expect today range from a minimum of $20 to friction
12:57 pm
hundred dollars per valid claim. the claim form and all of the information that you would wanted in this program is available online at cal loan refund.organize. which hope the out roach efforts we are launching today for check 'n go matches the success we saw earlier this year with loan marred we settle and they are the same in partnership with many of the leaders today. we helped secure five-point pieive million dollars in refund for money mart barrowers reis city institution in that case averaged $500 per claim and are more than 800 claims were filed and it was a tremendous success and we hope hope i check 'n go effort is just as successful.
12:58 pm
to maximize rest city tiges for every borrower who is involved. i would like to introduce a partner in our effort in the money mart case is michael the executive director of the san francisco interface counsel and michael treive vairian who's representing from the office fnltd empowerment and kristinee the california reinvestment corporation and laurel pew ma'am mack from californiafirst five and the mission economic development agency and finally, johnathan sagaa chose were the commission economic development agency i can't tell you how important it is that this be a coordinated effort as many of you may be familiar in the money mart settlement we traveled you will and upand down the sate
12:59 pm
press confrontation in sacramento and reached ow to bars throughout the state of california to achieve an unprecedented level of success for a predatory lending effort and we would not have been able do that without the corporation of elected throughout the state and community leaders as well and we are hopeful that this will be a template for what wedo in this case and that we get a similar level of success to make sure had a money goes back to the people who are victim iressed and that they get the restitution that they deserve and i would like to introduce michael papist from the enter face-to-face 98 counsel because he was a big part in making sure we got our effort out to the 98 community and to make sure that borrowers who were vimsed got the restitution they deserved and we are happy he is